Should McCain Board A Sinking Ship?
Leave aside, for a moment, all the talk about McCain as a moderate, or the straw poll vote at this past weekend’s SRLC. Howard Fineman inadvertently poses an interesting question in spite of himself, though, as usual, you have to pick through some overblown prose to get there:
In a sense, Sen. John McCain’s campaign for the presidency in 2008 began with a personal, private phone call he made last week—to President George W. Bush.
A good source told me about it here the other day, in a quiet moment at the Southern Republicans’ conference at the Peabody Hotel, and McCain himself confirmed it at a reception hosted by Mississippi Republicans at one of the noisiest places in town, BB King’s restaurant.
Private though it was, the McCain call was emblematic of the ‘08 strategy that he and his circle have decided to pursue. They want to build out their campaign with members of the Bush circle, and base McCain’s pitch on the notion that he is the only sensible, electable and competent commander who can take control of the war on terror.
“Competence and electability,” that’s what we’re going to talk about,” said a key advisor. “If you support the president’s vision, John can carry it forward.”
If there is a sense that McCain’s campaign began with that phone call, it’s a sense without much sense behind it, Howard – John McCain’s campaign began the minute he decided to put the 2000 primary season behind him and come out strong for George W. Bush in 2004.
It’s that loyalty that wins me over – no matter how self-serving it may be. On the surface, McCain is adopting an extremely risky strategy. Embracing a president with approval ratings in the cellar, and becoming his heir apparent in a war that is, to say the least, increasingly unpopular would not seem the smart way to go. Certainly, a man without McCain’s self-confidence wouldn’t try it.
How can I say self-serving, then? Well, no matter what the polls say, Bush holds the reins of power, and an enormous amount of fundraising prowess. In a sense, then, McCain’s loyalty can be seen as toadying. I don’t think it will be perceived that way, though; McCain is a tough-as-nails former POW who has been tortured, and he’s seen the bad side of President Bush in South Carolina in 2000.
I think McCain’s loyalty is to more than George W. Bush, the man, despite the goodies such loyalty may bring. I think, instead, it is to the office of President, and more particularly, to that office in a time of war. McCain’s disagreements with the Administration are not exactly a secret – but he maintains a certain level of support for the office, its prestige, and its symbolic role at a time when many of the President’s foes take a perverse delight in, say, the troubles we face in Iraq, or the President’s black eye over the ports fiasco, never mind the real harm that may be done to our country as a result.
McCain frames it best in another part of Fineman’s article:
So what was the Bush call about? According to McCain, he simply wanted to offer friendship during the furor over the now-defunct Dubai Ports deal. Even though President Bush remains popular with most hard-core Republicans, his overall poll numbers are about as low as you can go—flirting with territory once occupied by Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.
As McCain explained it, you get no credit for standing with a popular ally; the test of friendship is to be at his side when he’s down. So the call was meant as a personal pick-me-up. “I wanted to tell him that I was with him, and supported him, and that the polls weren’t a test of whether he was doing the right thing, which I think he is.”
Fineman makes it clear that he doesn’t believe that; he thinks the ulterior motives outweigh the loyalty, or inspire it.
I take the opposite tack: I see the ulterior motives, but from what I know of the man, I think they’re a side benefit to a stance he would adopt anyway, as a point of honor. This is the reason that, while I don’t endorse any candidate (at least at the moment), I would not have a problem throwing my support behind McCain, should he gain the nomination. I suspect many (though I’m fully aware not all) Republicans will feel the same…
“Should McCain board a sinking ship”
Yes. He has to.
The only way he wins the nomination is if he’s the establishment candidate. McCain is the last person on Earth who can run as an outsider in the GOP primary and win.
It’s really smart how McCain is trying to line up as many of the current GOP leaders behind him as he can, because I’m pretty sure that Dubya won’t endorse anyone as his replacement outright unless Condi changes her mind.
He’s got Graham, Barbour, and Lott on board already. Sanford just announced his independence, but I wonder if that was just an attempt to appear neutral. He will have Arnold and Ken Blackwell too if they win in ’06. Supposedly there is another hardcore conservative in the Senate just waiting to come out fior McCain.
Lining up Barbour and Bond are especially important now that Allen signed on Gillespie.
The way for McCain to win is to appear nationally as the frontrunner and have almost all of current GOP in office behind him. I don’t see Romney or Allen being able to mount a winning insurgency campaign on the GOP side of the aisle if this happens. The rank and file of the party fall in line with the establishment’s candidate almost all of the time with 1964 being the exception of course.
-Dole was the heir in 1996 after being defeated for Veep in 1976 and not getting his own shot outright in 1980 because it was still too soon for him in 1980.
-Bush I was the heir to Reagan after coming in 2nd place in 1980 and serving as Veep.
-Reagan was the heir in 1980 after coming in 2nd place to Ford in 1976.
-Nixon was the heir after sitting out 1964 because it was too soon for him to try again.
-Nixon was also the heir in 1960 as Eisenhower’s Veep.
The GOP, except for 1964, follows this pattern. It would only make sense for McCain to be the heir in 2008 after coming in 2nd place in 2000.
Now some may say that 1964 is the exception that proves the rule for McCain. That McCain is an heir that is out of sink with the rank and file similat to Nelson Rockefeller in 1964.
But that is not really the case in 2008. McCain’s serious challengers (Allen, Romney, Rudy) are significantly to the left of him on almost every issue except for taxes.
I believe that a insurgency candidate can only win in the GOP if the candidate is significantly to the right of the frontrunner.
With both Romney and Allen’s Pro-Choice pasts, and Romney “big government conservativism” (mandatory health insurance in MA), I’m not sure that this is the case with either of them.
I would guess that he would also like to tap into Karl Rove’s strategy and operational abilities regarding his upcoming campaign as well – just as Bush Senior did with Lee Atwater, when he was still with the Reagan team.
I’d vote for him. On the Democartic side, I’d even consider Gov. Warner based on an incident that happened in SF. Since I don’t trust the Democrats on national security, I’d stick with someone like Senator McCain.
Mark – I agree totally. Obviously McCain benefits from being the insider candidate and lining up Bush’s party apparatus behind him (especially given that the crowd he most needs to please is the crowd that is still solidly behind the President – I, for instance, am not someone McCain needs to win over). That said, no way do I think he’s pandering in the slightest. He’s not afraid to step up and disagree with this administration, and he’s not about to stop doing that now just to become President. This is serious agreement and serious respect for the man who holds the office.
I want to say I’m pleasantly surprised to see this post here. I’ve been arguing in vain for months now that, with the exception of longshot candidates like Newt, McCain really is the conservative candidate in this race. The love affairs with Romney and Giuliani are certainly going to evaporate as soon as they open their mouths, and I have no doubt a similar thing would happen with Condi. Only Allen appears to have the conservative bona fides to really compete in a fair fight with McCain, but I think McCain would annihilate him in a fair fight. Anyway, I suspect that your position here is much closer to the position of the average Republican than that of the people at RedState. I have never understood their vehement opposition, but it’s nice to see it hasn’t spread everywhere.
If the Repubs were smart, they would make sure that nobody else runs against him in the primaries thus guaranteeing him the nomination. The Repubs need to stick together on this issue and close ranks and do what is best for the party. I am willing to follow this strategy and put my vote next to his name even if I do feel he is a bit of a snake. The downside is huge if he or another Repub cannot win in ’08. I have no desire to live in a deep cavernous merciless extremely hot location if that other “Clinton” inhabits the White House.
My father-in law is a rock solid Republican, a big Dick Cheney fan, and he thinks that everything in New York Times has a liberal slant, including the sports section. He told my parents recently that he hopes to be able to vote for Hillary in 2008 (probably causing them to fall off their seats). I have no idea if this is typical among those who have consistently voted GOP for the last twenty years – but if it is, you guys should be very afraid…
peter, if McCain runs against Hillary, we may see an electoral sweep of a magnitude not seen since Reagan crushed Mondale – and Hillary ain’t gonna be on top of that pile…
As a professor of mine used to say: in the fullness of time, the Truth will be revealed to us all…
Consider this, if you doubt – almost no Republican would vote for Hillary under any possible circumstance – and she ain’t a hit with independents, either. For that matter, the Democrats are trying like crazy to find a replacement candidate.
McCain will have trouble with some conservatives, yes – but they will vote for him or stay home before they’ll ever go Democratic. However, McCain will get almost all of the independent vote, and he’ll do all right even with Democrats!
As you say, time will tell (please oh please oh please let it be!)…
Well, maybe so, but if you knew my father-in-law, you would start to wonder – having Jack support Hillary is like having Sam Brownback tell you that he plans on voting for Ralph Nader the next time around –
Peter – You’re generally a pretty sensible contributor, even despite your political affiliations. But you can’t honestly believe that Hillary could win the election… can you? I know you dislike Bush, but that’s no excuse for being crazy. Hillary would be disaster of unimaginable proportions. And your father-in-law, if he’s really that conservative, will vote for McCain. Don’t worry.
I don’t know if Hillary can win, and I wish there were stronger Democratic candidates. With the exception of Bill Clinton, I don’t think that the Democrats have had a really good Presidential candidate since, I dunno, Paul Tsongas. Regrettably, I think 2008 will be a contest of dwarfs, and may the best dwarf win.
As for my father-in-law: he lived in Saudi Arabia for a number of years (he worked for a company which built turbines for the oil industry) so he has a somewhat different perspective than most — the war in Iraq really set him off — so given McCain’s position on Iraq, I think he really would vote for Hillary.
The real problem for Democrats is that there are, put simply, so few strong governors in the stable. In an election year when the best Republicans are largely being drawn from the Senate, a good executive-style Democrat could make a big showing. Given that the party can’t even seem to hold on to their own stronghold states (California, New York, and Massachusetts all having Republican governors), the D’s are in some hot water. I honestly believe that Warner’s the only viable candidate on the map right now (although I also believe that a simple Electoral College calculation makes Evan Bayh competitive, even if he isn’t at all interesting). But Hillary is especially dead in the water.
Republican enthusiasm for McCain begins and ends with the perception of him as the only electable Republican in 2008. That enthusiasm is I suspect concentrated in the higher ranks, and shared by the media. He is not universally popular among the infantry and could have a problem making it through the primaries particularly if one of his opponents plays some dirty pool a la 2000. Whether catching a ride on gwb’s coatails is good policy really depends on how one thinks the next three years are going to play out. Is Iraq going to end well (not really likely is it), will there be a recession (quite possibly), it is also incredibly dependant on 2006, if the democrats are able to win back the house or the senate, or both, they are going to spend the next two years shredding gwb’s reputation and he won’t have any coat tails left.
On Hillary complacency. I had to add this. All the posters who think it is going to be walkover need to wake up. Nobody thought she would win NY as a carpet bagger, many thought she would crash and burn in the senate. Neither proved accurate. She is smart, incredibly personable, knowledgeable on policy issues, and articulate (I’ve seen her her in action) and experienced. Add to that a full war chest and a chief of staff, you know who, who is the most accomplished politician of modern times, and she is going to be formidable. Reliance on her ”unelectability” because the base detest her is hardly a prescription for success. She is also going to have going for her Republican ”fatigue” and more indefinable, the American appetite for novelty. I just don’t buy the idea that all those women independants and moderate Republicans are not going to be turned on by the possibility of a woman president. The counter to that is men will vote gender. Some probably will but they are likely to be counter balanced by other men attracted by the novelty and it certainly isn’t somehting that is a given. Forget the complacency and accepted wisdom, when this race gets beyond the confines of the junkies who loiter on this site, the dynamics will change completely and in ways that are not necessarily unfavorable to Mrs C.
Otto, I agree with you to a point – Hillary CAN win, but it depends on the opponent – she can’t beat McCain or Giuliani in a general election, but I think she very well might beat most of the other Republican hopefuls…
Mark,
You are falling victim to conventional wisdom. Despite all the Giuliani hype, with his baggage which will be subjected to searching scrutiny, it is very unlikely he could get the nomination from the Republican base. McCain despite some problems with the base can probably get the nomination, although that is not going to be the walkover everyone thinks (see my comments above). Once he has it he is going to be up against Republican ”fatigue” and some potentially wedge issues which are going to help Hil with women (ie. abortion which is getting back on the radar because of ND). McCain wants to overturn Roe, if you think this is going to do him any favors with suburban Republican and independant women think again. There is also the looming iceberg of healthcare, the American public has become a lot more educated about this issue since the early nineties and are less in a mood to buy the story line of the drug and insurance companies. It is a long time to 2008 and a lot can happen, but the GOP is making a huge mistake if it just buys into this mantra of ”Hillary’s unelectable because everyone hates her.”
Otto, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on Giuliani – I think he could get the Republican nomination, but I’m starting to doubt that he will seek it – at least this time around…
Mark, I live in NYC for part of the year. Believe me, Rudy who did a great job as mayor overall but was getting into very dangerous territory before he was saved by 9/11 has more baggage than Paris Hilton. This was extensively covered in the NY press but never on the national radar really. In a primary campaign every bit of it is going to be under the microscope along with some hostages to fortune he has probably created during his current money making phase. There will a bunch of Bernie Kerik moments believe me. Probably for these reasons I’m inclined to accept your view that he is losing interest in seeking the nomination. That said, you don’t really address how a pro abortion rights, pro gay marriage, pro gun controls, etc. etc. is going to play with the GOP base in Peoria, or South Carolina.
Mark,
I live in NYC for part of the year. Believe me Rudi has more baggage than Paris Hilton and every bit of it would be pored over in the primaries. He has also probably created a few hostages to fortune during the current money making phase. There would be lots of Bernie Kerik moments. Neither do you address how a pro abortion rights, pro gun control, pro gay marriage candidate is going to wow the faithful in South Carolina. That said, I agree with your contention he is loosing interest in the nomination, probably for some of the reasons I mention.
Mark, seem to be having difficulty responding. Another check
Mark,
You don’t really address how a Rudi, pro abortion rights, pro gun control, pro gay marriage etc. candidate is going to be embraced by the faithful in South Carolina. He also has a lot of baggage from his mayorality which while a huge success in overall terms was petering out under a a clould until 9/11 came along. All this together with any more recent hostages to fortune he may have given would be under intense scrutiny in primaries. That said I agree with your basic contention that he is loosing interest probably for the above reasons.